The Instigator
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Jordan515
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings were not Justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,064 times Debate No: 76647
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Emilrose

Pro

**Open debate**

Debate Premise:

Full resolution: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings were not Justified.

-72 Hour argument period.

-Whoever takes the position of "Con", will be arguing that the U.S was in fact justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the end of its war with Japan in August 1945.

-Shared BoP.

Rules:

-Round one acceptance.

-Round two opening argument[s]

-Round three rebuttals.

-Round four closing argument[s]

Definitions:

1. Justified

a. to provide or be a good reason for (something)

b. to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable.





Jordan515

Con

I will be taking the con side of this argument over if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not justified. I think we can all agree that those bombings were not moral. Bombing innocent civilians is never a moral thing to due but due to the circumstances, the United States had justification to the bombings
Debate Round No. 1
Emilrose

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting this debate and good luck! Additionally, welcome to the site.

Opening Argument:

Firstly, I will clarify that it’s not exclusively the fact that at least over 130,00 innocent Japanese civilians were killed and countless ones injured during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks; but the factors surrounding the attacks and what could have been done to prevent them. This is what I will mainly highlight in my arguments[s].

Just a few months prior to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks, World War Two was officially over in the rest of the world. The Japanese military—especially its naval fraction-- was effectively defeated and of no real threat to the U.S. Japan was a country with no allies or proper freedom to use its naval forces, thus rendering it logically implausible for Japan to successfully attempt an attack on America in the few months before the bombings. Moreover, cities all over Japan were enduring continuous attacks from U.S air forces. The U.S had the superior military and was fighting a dramatically weakened army, with no realistic prospect of actually winning the war. This provides just one reason on as to why the use of largely untested nuclear on two separate cities was not justified.

Moreover, on the contrary to being dropped on specific military targets, something that would seemingly quicken the process of officially defeating Japan, the bombs were dropped directly into cities and among civilian populace. It was solders or those belonging to the Japanese army that were really hit, but civilians themselves. [1.] http://www.atomicarchive.com...

This isn’t due to the use of human-shields either, once again: these were people merely going about their daily lives within the city and its surrounding area.

One of the common beliefs in the U.S surrounding the bombings is that that Japan had explicitly refused to surrender and were prepared to not only continue the war—but actually launch a severe attack on America in some
way. However, the Japanese Emperor Hirochito had made it clear that he was ready to surrender months prior to the attack; providing he could remain Japans leader and that Japan would be granted immunity from war crimes after it was over. One may presume that the nuclear attacks were still justified [on the basis that Japan had committed war crimes] but the U.S strangely decided to accept these terms after it bombed the two cities. Japan’s emperor could stay, and they would not be put on trial for war crimes. You essentially have the same outcome but at the cost of a significant number of lives and the nuclear destruction of two cities. [2.] http://www.takepart.com...

Even the U.S Truman outlined in his journal that:

"On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary of War Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people."

Regarding other forms of admittance, the The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by president Truman to investigate air attacks made on Japan, concluded in its reported dated in July 1946:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

In addition, U.S general and future president Dwight Eisenhower was stated as saying:

“The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Other prominent government officials who shared the same opinion include Herbert Hoover and Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew, who both stated respectively :

“The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up,there would have been no occasion to drop the atomic bombs.”

And:

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the retention of the dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the Japanese Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clear cut decision. If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the Pacific war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.”

To give one final example, William D. Leahy, who served as Chief of Staff for the U.S government at the time, admitted:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.” [3.] http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Now, seeing that it’s easily established that dropping nuclear bombs for the first time in history fulfilled no real military or political purpose; why did the U.S decide to go ahead with it? One major reason was that it wanted to “try out” nuclear and determine exactly what its effectiveness would be. So in essence, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were an experiment for the U.S—along with beginning its status as a world and military superpower, and one that wasn’t afraid to use such harsh methods against its enemies.

To quote another U.S military figure at the time, Admiral William F. Halsey—who was a commander of the Third Fleet, publicly declared that the atomic bomb was used by scientists who had a “toy and they wanted to try it out” further adding, “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment , it was a mistake to ever drop it.”

What is for certain is that the U.S did not “need” to ever use nuclear against Japan in two of its key cities, the war between the two countries was essentially over and Japan had already stated that they would surrender to the U.S. Therefore, there was no valid justification for the bombings. Specifically if you’re going by the “justifications” and excuses that the U.S has purported over the years.

Jordan515

Con

Jordan515 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jordan515

Con

Jordan515 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Emilrose

Pro

Vote Pro.
Jordan515

Con

Jordan515 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stargate 2 years ago
stargate
Okay first off it was justified, at the time there where two opinions. The first one being drop the atmoic bomb on japan. The second was a plan for a massive military land invasion. At the time if we did the land invasion we would have lost millions of troops. The atmoic bomb was a quick end the the war. If we did not drop it even more would have died, and the destruction would be even more widespread. Also after the war we helped rebuild Japan, it is not like we said okay we won peace out.
Posted by GoatScroat 2 years ago
GoatScroat
Just think of the bomb like the first guns. SHOCK AND AWE!
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Deal!
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
If this guy forfeits every round then I owe you a debate on this topic, k?
Posted by BurningCriticism 2 years ago
BurningCriticism
don't have to FREE COUNTRY!!! becouse we stand for what we believe in!
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
LOL, whatever! You're not the one in the debate so f_ckk off.
Posted by BurningCriticism 2 years ago
BurningCriticism
Okay this is a stupid debate, realize that millions of lives and resources were saved by droping those bombs-that was the U.S's only intention!!!

And sorry but Japan was in the wrong for refusing to surrender in the first place, yes the U.S was definately going to win the war, but do you realize that so many lives were essentially saved.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Ikr, haven't debated you yet.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Noo some noob accepted. Should've been quicker.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Too late ;P
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
EmilroseJordan515Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
EmilroseJordan515Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit. Pro was the only one to provide any arguments. And I urge other voters to vote on this - full forfeit debates that are left ties aren't meant to be such.